Skip to main content

About this Show

Tonight From Washington

News/Business. News.




San Francisco, CA, USA

Comcast Cable

Channel 17 (141 MHz)






Us 41, England 19, U.s. 9, Europe 5, Wales 4, United States 3, Maine 3, America 3, Maryland 3, Minnesota 2, Avi Reichental 2, China 2, Ibm 2, Lgb 2, Washington 2, Barcelona 2, California 2, Atlanta 2, Britain 2, Taiwan 2,
Borrow a DVD
of this show
  CSPAN    Tonight From Washington    News/Business. News.  

    February 8, 2013
    8:00 - 11:00pm EST  

>> next, the british house of commons debate on legalizing same-sex marriage. the executive to her the same couples bill as it's known in the u.k. also includes provisions to protect religious organizations and individuals are being forced to the next same-sex marriages. the final vote, 42175.
bill must be approved by the house of lords. here's a 90 minute portion of the debate. >> i beg to the death of marriage to same-sex couples bill be read a second time. mr. speaker, you and i know that every marriage is different. indeed any husband or wife is a member of this house is a very distinct set of challenges to face every day. [laughter] was marriage offers us all is a lifelong partner to share our journey, a loving, stable relationship to strength a nice and a mutual support throughout our lives. i believe this is something that should be embraced by more couples, feeling, love and commitment is no difference between same-sex couples and opposite not couples. this enables society to recognize that commitment in the same way through marriage. parliament should value people equally and a lot and enabling
same-sex couples to marry removes the current differentiation and distinction. there's no single view on equal marriage from religious organization. some are deeply opposed, others tell us they see this as an opportunity to take that to a wider community. [inaudible] >> will the right honorable lady give a guarantee that if this bill becomes law, no religious denomination, no place of worship, no clergymen or equivalent in other religions will be forced by legal action in the chorus or the community to carry out weddings without their wishes? >> the honorable judge gimenez preempted the later parts of my
contribution, but i can say to him was taken seriously all the points he's raised about the need for protection and he will see in some detail on the bill heller put them into place. >> i think by right honorable fred. written to honorable members on the issue of equality between same-sex and different sex individuals. the issues of consummation and adultery, while they will continue to be important aspects, they will not apply to marriage. they are both equal and should be a lifelong union. >> my honorable friend will know already there's no legal requirements to consummation, their provisions will mean ochiltree stays in couples will have the opportunity to decide on reasonable good behavior as many do already and issues he
raises adults and not way. perhaps we can make more progress because there's no single view from religious organizations on this issue and i know also that some colleagues in the house feel that they cannot agree with this bill for principled religious beliefs. and i entirely respect if the honorable gentleman would give me a bit more progress. i don't think it's the role of government to tell people what to believe, but i do think parliament and the states have a responsibility to treat people fairly. i'll give weight to my honorable friend over there. >> i'm grateful for the minutes. will she take this opportunity to confirm that those opponents of this bill, many hundreds of my constituents are not amarnath tickets.
[shouting] >> i think my honorable friend makes his point very well. >> i think my honorable friend. i very much support this bill. i do regret it's been programmed. there should be two days to second race of people can express views. >> my honorable friend knows that tape is not a serious seriously and id. we have to make sure there is sufficient debate. i think per the usual channels they made sure that is the case. i hope my honorable friend will be very pleased to see the progress we've made on that. if i can perhaps nothing make a little more progress and not take mentions in a moment. some say this bill, mr. speaker, redefines marriage, but marriage is in fact an institution with a long history of adaptation and change. in the 19th century, catholics, baptists, atheists
and many others were only allowed to marry if they did so at an anglican church and in the 20th century, changes were made to recognize married man and women and equal before the law. suggestions this bill changes something that has remained unchanged for centuries simply does not recognize the rows of marriage cobbled as an institution. i give way to the honorable gentleman. >> would she bear in mind that when homosexuality was decriminalized, there's a great deal of opposition for the bill and a great deal of opposition. bush do not agree they would be hardly a single number we wish to return to the situation, which existed prior to 1967 l. and this is not possible within a few years if this passes, will
be generally accepted by the 1967 act. >> the right general men is ray. we must not legislate today commended the future as well, honorable gentleman. >> i'm going to support the ministers bills because they think the principle is dry. i'm not sure why i should enjoy a right or privilege and denied to others. i wonder, why she hasn't confined herself a civil marriage would be a much easier area to deal with? >> with the honorable gentleman will know as there are many other organizations come in many religious organizations have expressed an interest in being able to undertake same-sex marriages. we believe it's right to be able to do that and that's why there's provisions in the bill to be able to do that if they so choose. if honorable members can let me make a little more progress on
the multics or interventions. mr. speaker, marriage should be, as we've heard defended and promoted in every way to those who argue civil partnerships exist and contain very similar -- to those who argue they contain very similar riots, marriage is just a word and this bill is unnecessary, that's not right. a legal partnership is not perceived in the same way and does not have the same promises of responsibility and commitment of marriage for couples to enter a lifelong commitment together should be able to call it marriage. >> i will vote for the second reading of the bill because i support the principle the minister has just enunciated. but the last intervention in important point about making sure we purchased a carefully detailed to the state can do with camacho civil marriage and not religious beliefs.
will the secretary of state made clear that shall be open to amendments to the drafting of the bill both in committee and report stage that might give us a much better balance and reassuring manner by people that are currently reassured? >> i right honorable friend is right to raise this issue. but i can do is reassure him we've been working very closely, particularly with the church of england, particularly with the church and whisk, both organizations feel that we have protection fair, but the church of england says they want to see change. i give my honorable friend and lady. >> i'm grateful for giving way. in religious organizations, the secretary will note that the population is not some. what proportion of the muslim community responded ice for it or against it.
not a single mosque responded by the definition of marriage. >> my honorable friend will know this is not an issue about numbers. it's about working together and to provide those protections to make sure individuals from whatever faith group can continue to be assured they can practice according to the point of debate today. >> i'm grateful for her getting right and i welcome this bill, but they should understand those who believe the church of england isn't being given the choice accorded to other states to marry same-sex couples if they so choose. besides from being forced, churches being forced not to marry them, even if some elements would like to do so. >> the honorable lady i think can get complete reassurance from me today that we are not in any way trying to treat the church of england or indeed the church in wales in any way
differently. the resulting look at will be exactly the same as other institutions. the difference is the fact that the church of england and with a different duty sender, not to marry people in parishes and indeed they can unlock as part of the law of this land in the church of england. so we do have to have different measures in place to recognize differences, but i can absolutely assure the honorable lady that either organization choose to opt-in to equal marriage, then they would be able to do so according to provisions in the bill. if honorable ladies and gentlemen can that may make more progress than i make further interventions. mr. speaker, from the contributions we've just heard, there's no doubt about the fundamental importance of faith in this country today. but i don't believe is a country
we have to choose between religious belief and fairness for same-sex couples. it is important to remember that religious views on same-sex marriage do differ, too. but there is a quaker communitarians for liberal jewish communities, others have said have said they want to conduct same-sex marriages and indeed, mr. speaker, paul parker who speaks for the quakers said the first same-sex marriage and a quaker meeting will be a wonderful day for marriage and religious freedom in madison and we do have to respect and we have to take note to. our proposals will ensure all religious organizations can act in accordance with their beliefs because, mr. speaker, equal marriage should not come at the cost of freedom of faith, nor freedom of faith, the cost of equal marriage. we are capable of accommodating
both this bill does so in a very straightforward manner. i give way to my honorable friends and the honorable gentleman. >> can she assure us at anytime in the future at a church not wishing to conduct a gay ceremony, can she assure us who would defy the european court of human rights and not try -- [inaudible] [shouting] >> my honorable friend, when i come at a later part of my speech will find that detail he is looking for to provide the assurances he's looking for. >> the honorable rady untranslated is right to say how i execration don't have any compulsion, and he worries about voting. what greater example could it be that jesus christ himself.
>> the honorable gentleman makes a powerful point and shows their views on this matter differ not along party lines or lines of religious membership of a particular religious institution , but far more than not. mr. speaker, if i could make a tiny bit of progress and i will of course take some further interventions. now for the provisions in the bill, the bill is honorable members will now has three parts. in part 1, same-sex couples to marry in civil ceremonies and religious organization protect and those that doubt. it also protects religious ministers and allows for conversion of a civil partnership to a marriage. part 2 enables an individual to change their legal gender without having to add their marriage and also provides overseas marriages and consulate
or armed forces bases. part 3 allows for the standard final provisions including secondary legislation. as honorable members have seen when they started the detail of the bill, i have been true to my word and ensure there is clear protection of religious organizations who are opposed to this measure, all religious organizations, whether jewish, muslim, christian or any other will decide for themselves if they want to conduct same-sex marriage. the bill provides and promotes religious freedom to the government laws. these protections are absolutely on the face of the bill and foundation upon which the legislation is bill. all give way to the honorable gentleman and then my honorable friend. >> i'm grateful to the secretary of state. can she explain why she's bringing the government this bill now at a time when there
hasn't been the subject of a green paper or white paper and are set against the government promised to do that they're not doing searches tax allowances. isn't the truth that this is about political calculation rather than anything to do with principle? [shouting] >> the honorable gentleman and i will disagree on this. we are doing this very clearly as an important part that we can make this a fair place to live. the measure was clearly side up with qualities at the time of election and what a day to say is we will continue to work with our colleagues in northern ireland to make sure we have the right recognition for english and welsh marriages in the northern ireland part of the united kingdom as well. i give way to the honorable member. >> i'm grateful to the secretary of state talking about protections in the bill.
we've had the case of mr. adrian smith who lost his job he spent an enormous amount of money in legal fees and had a 40% cut in a salary making a private comment. how are we going to protect people like mr. smith working in the public sector in this country? >> my honorable friend who i know takes a deep interest in these matters is entirely right to bring this up. i actually think the case is highlighting proves that individuals can express their religious beliefs and the court found that individual favor. i think that's important and players up another country should take clear note of that. [shouting] i'll give way to the honorable gentleman. >> i think the right honorable lady for giving way. she spoke about protections for ministers, but can she also the same two registrars in a number
of mixed sex marriage should be expected to fall, will they be confident even if they declined to take on a preside the new same-sex marriage registration they will not lose their jobs or experienced negative employment consequences? >> my honorable friend will know those who are civil registrars by public servants and the recent court rulings make very clear those individuals have to carefully balance their rights to a religious belief with their right to deeply make sure they provide in a way which doesn't discriminate against individuals. it's a very difficult issue and i know my honorable friend is for the right reasons say something again to be looked at closely in committee. >> i'm grateful to my friend for giving way. roman catholics legalize same-sex marriage in 2005.
there's been a single case, single referral to the european court of human rights. >> not that i'm aware of. [shouting] >> i'm grateful for my right honorable friend giving way, but she failed to answer the point by the honorable member for belfast north. can she tell the house and the people of this country, where to shoot issued a mandate to inflict this massive cultural change that was not in our party's manifesto. the prime minister has no plans to introduce this. are many major institutions to deal with and this is an irrelevant and should not be pursued, least of all on a program notion with real debate. [shouting] >> my fellow mp and i know we disagree on this matter and we do so in a very fair and evenhanded manner and it's that fairness and evenhandedness i want to make sure it's there in
all aspects of this government policy. i do think there's an extremely strong argument i'm making here today for this measure to go through. that's a recently parliamentary debates to discuss these matters in more detail. i think i probably need to make a little more progress at this time to take some further interventions in a moment. i know today for many colleagues the crux of the issue does fly around these protections, for the church of england and the church in wales, which have a unique position because of the legal duty on their clergy to marry parishioners. in addition the church of england as the established church it's canon law as part of the law of the land. there is no disadvantage is that setup ready to the honorable lady or favorable treatment for the church of england or the church in wales. it simply provides a pragmatic
way of putting them in essentially the same position as other religious organizations. if they decide they want to marry same-sex couples, they can. we've are charred with a wide range of religious organizations , including both these churches to ensure protections in the bill work and indeed the church of england has commented on the construct a way in which we've consulted on the issue of effect give legal safeguards, ensuring their concerns are properly accommodated in the church in west has confirmed the bill provides protection for it while still enabling to make its own decision on same-sex marriage. mr. speaker, turning to one issue that's already been raised in the debate a great deal, which is the concern around legal protection and also issues around the convention on human rights. there has been much discussion
about the powers of the european court of human rights. the case law from the court is clear. the question of whether and if so how to allow same-sex marriage must be left to the individual state to decide for themselves. mr. speaker, it is simply inconceivable that court would require a faith group to conduct same-sex marriages in breach of its own doctrine. and not my words, mr. speaker, that the imminent word panic on the baroness kennedy and lord master. to be very clear, to believe the corporate greed at the u.k. religious organizations to marry same-sex couples who lives on a combination of three highly improbable conclusions.
first, the court would need to go against its own clear precedent, that countries have wide discretion to the matter of same-sex marriage. secondly, the court would need to decide the interest of the couples who wanted a particular religious organization to marry than outweigh the race and belief of an entire season of competition as a whole. thirdly, the court would need to discount the importance of article ix of its own convention, which guarantees freedom before conscience and religion and would be rewriting the post not just for one religious organization in england and wales, but all religious organizations in all 47 states of the council of europe, such an outcome, mr. speaker is inconceivable. i give way to my honorable
friend. >> 's surely fundamental to who we are, the crux of this debate is whether or not we accord equal rights and respects to people regardless of their sexuality. [shouting] >> my honorable friend makes the point powerfully. we need to make sure we treat people fairly and this really is at the heart of what we're talking about today. >> i think by right honorable friend for giving way. she's making a powerful case for religious freedom. did she observe the church of england statement that it's not realistic or likely that churches will be forced to conduct same-sex weddings? >> i'm glad my honorable friend underlies that for me because i don't want anyone to leave the debate today about the right information on which they can base decisions to vote and i think my honorable friend has underlined the importance of the facts in this case.
if honorable ladies and gentlemen can forgive now make more progress because we have a great deal of interest in participating in this debate. colleagues also want to understand consequences of this bill were widely. the introduction of equal marriage will not marginalize those who believe that marriage should be between a man and a woman. that is clearly a mainstream view. but either will continue to marginalize those who believe marriage can and should also be between a man and a man or woman and woman. we will not allow one to exist at the expense of the other. no misguided sense of political correctness will be allowed to impinge on this. it would be deeply divisive if in writing wrong for some we created wrong for others. no teacher will be required to
promote or endorse views that go against their beliefs. no hospital worker will believe in a new definition of marriage. the religious minister will conduct same-sex weddings. if the changes we talk about today will not affect anyone more than arafat is already are choosing to live in a society that values tolerance and respect amongst its citizens. i give way. >> is there anything at all in the provisions of this bill which would harm or disadvantage any heterosexual person anyway whatsoever? >> i can say to my honorable friend, no. and strengthening marriage the way were talking will actually be a benefit to all people in our society. i give way to my honorable friend. >> she's made it clear she would
introduce a bill to this house that in any way impinged on church or ministers. after in the passage of this bill there may be attempts to give a free vote to unpick the sox and i know the reason to the church in relation to the same-sex marriage, would this be a vote for the bill? >> what i would say is the church of england has made clear keeping protections we have in place as they are and i would be chewing on my honorable friend and saying any such maneuvers would be very much counterproductive. i will wind up my remarks. >> one of the key issues has been raised is how schools will handle the curriculum, particular faith skills. i'm inclined to support this legislation this evening. can the secretary of state say a bit more quakes can she save the are how this'll be handled in the school curriculum?
>> the honorable gentleman is right to bring that out in more detail and he will of course see the words from the secretary of state report widely over the weekend and the point to make clearly to the house today his teachers of course will be expected to explain as professionals about the law around marriage. but we never would expect is to promote something that ran contrary to their own beliefs or religious belief and that is an important point to make and perhaps clears up some of the misunderstandings being put around this debate today. i give my honorable friend of course i cannot say no to, but then i must wind up. >> i am most grateful to my right honorable friend who has taken a lot of interventions. but on that point, could you clarify what she says nobody
will be forced to teach anything that goes against their conscience, but what about schools that wish to promote another faith view of marriage? will they continue to be allowed to do so and can she guarantee no teacher who actively does so will be sued or prosecuted? >> right honorable friend will know already these clear provisions in place for groups of faith schools to talk about their beliefs when it comes to issues like marriage. as with many other areas, whether to do with divorce or children being born outside of marriage, teachers have to do with these issues sensitively and i think that of course is the point he's getting on just to reiterate we would expect teachers to be professional expert in these issues to the children they teach. and no way requiring them to promote something which does not accord.
mr. speaker, i want to make sure i've concluded to give individuals time to contribute on their own to this debate. mr. speaker, despite discussions in the debate, this bill is about one thing. it's about fairness. it's giving those who want to get married the opportunity to do so was to protect the rights of those who don't agree with same-sex marriage. marriage is one of the most important institutions we have. it binds families and society together. it's a building block that promotes stability. this bill cultivates marriage and i commend this bill. [applause] >> it really is a pleasure to follow the honorable gentleman chesterfield who has articulated by people of faith across our country has struggled with, but come to the conclusion that love
should be there for one and not an marriage should not be an exclusive institution. deputy speaker, i am a tree into man who grew up in a rural part of our country in a working-class background and i grew up some 20 odd years ago in an environment to meet a hugely difficult for me to be open and honest and upfront with my family, friends and work mates about choices that want to take in life and the people i wanted to see. i was unacceptable 24 years ago. it's unacceptable today. for many hundreds of thousands of people across our country, it remains the case. i'm standing here today to welcome this historic legislation, which will any discrimination, but more crucially send a signal at this house values everyone equally and not signal will deeply affect those people like me 20
years ago who saw this house both equally as the of consent. that was the first time i'd seen on our tv screen and the first time i realized i was not allowed and it changed my life. so as we take this historic step, we should remember thousands of gay man and tran for women were put to death 40 years ago, thousands were criminalized, live strong. 30 years ago. people subject to scientific torment in search of eight cure appeared to come a long way in a short space of time. it's right in my view this house takes the next step and delivers a quality for gay and lesbian people. you will say he would say that because he's a gays man. this is one born of her hatred of discrimination and prejudice of all types, whether gender or skin color or religion, the
community should be valuing diversity that treating everybody equally. these values are enshrined one and all, a community i grew up in come a community and proud to represent how one that values community. it's not one in all a part of her black, catholic or if you're gay. if the abuse of power one of my honorable friend is so right to have made sure this house will not compel people and religious organizations to do anything they choose not to do. we have struck the right balance between an assuring the quality and preserving religious freedom. as a house they must also question those who wish to work privilege for themselves. we know marriage is an important institution that delivers many positive benefits in terms of
stability, health, happiness. if we recognize benefits, why would we keep them away from some of our neighbors who seek to experience if they choose to end their faith allows it. we wouldn't tolerate the sum of discrimination in any other sphere of life and we should end it tonight in this one. mr. deputy speaker, equal marriage will not be the end of the struggle for gay equality in the family delivering franchise to women for ending apartheid were in those battles, but will ask the right questions and we'll send a clear signal we value everybody equally. [shouting] >> jim dobbin. >> thank you, mr. deputy speaker. i congratulate this today. this is my own personal view,
mr. deputy speaker and is probably going to be much different to the vast majority of my own party and i respect that difference. for the first time in history or government has proposed a bill that will change the law. the shared view of the institution supports the raising of children who and marriage in civic life yesterday evening. >> serb roger gale. >> to concur with his speech. mr. deputy speaker, i have the privilege of sharing the civil partnership for the house of commons. as has been said, very clear undertakings were given by the government and indeed the opposition benches at this time that this was not a peeping bill
for same-sex marriage. this was the ending itself designed to write very considerable wrongs him on. that it did and that's what the european rates did not indistinguishable from what we know is marriage. my right honorable friend when i put this to her earlier told me that no government could buy enough food or she is correct. no government can bind another. that takes the bottom out of every undertaking that my right honorable friend has given. he's about to play to most of us on the side of the house that this bill, the product of the bill will end up before the courts, what i meant before the european court of human rights and people of faith will find that being trampled upon and
that to us is intolerable. the cabinet paper -- a gateway to my right honorable friend if she wishes to correct me, but the cabinet paper was entitled marriage. it is not possible to redefine marriage. marriage is the union between a man and a woman, has been historically it remains so. it is alice in wonderland territory, orwellian almost. for any government to seek to, log and try to rewrite the lexicon will not. there is a way forward. then suggested, but it's been a toy. i don't subscribe myself, but i recognize base, if a government is serious about this, abolish the civil partnerships bill, abolish civil marriage and create a civil union bill that
applies to all people irrespective of sexuality or relationships that means brothers and brothers and sisters and sisters as well. that would be a way forward. step 10 >> can i just suggest gently that what he's just suggested is profoundly offensive to civil partnerships, but quite a few people on both sides of this house. >> of marriage in a house is not mine. isn't that eminent lawyer, that it would create what i think the honorable gentleman wants is the quality. it would create a level playing field and leave marriage and faith to those who understand marriage means they and a union
between a man and woman if nothing else the honorable gentleman may think that are given away. in this house an outsider very many people who share this view. to conclude, i urge members on both sides of this house not too extreme. if they support this measure, before it appeared to vote vote against it, but against you i shot myself. >> thank you, mr. deputy speaker. marriage is none of the most important institutions in our society. it concerns many of us that it is in decline. while many move away from marriage, one group turns towards it. gay couples are now asking to be admitted. here we have a section of society say no to declare commitment, value stability in the sight of the public and perhaps of god. we defenders of marriage should be gratefully opening doors
coming at the reaction of some has been to slam the door shut. it is said that gay people should accept partnerships and no more, which most of the legal rights of the marriage. thousands of people like me are grateful for the curse of members who for that change entering a civil partnership was the most important thing i've done in my life. then come the civil partnership supposed that the churches by a significant portion and many honorable members. eight years later, only a small minority impose them in many honorable members vote against the change now say they support it. people choose marriage for a reason. they know it means something special. because marriage is different that many oppose change. we cannot say civil partnerships are the same or dismiss the debates and how many married couples would like to be told
they were banned from natural money in able only to take a civil partnership. the church of england object to gay marriage. i disagree, religious freedom is amongst the greatest prizes and democracy. i would not vote for this bill must have a different type did and no faith group should be compelled to conduct a gay marriage against his will and ability. religious freedom cuts both ways. why should the law prevent churches from conducting gay marriages if they wish to do. but the proper safeguards and individuals to exercise conscience and disagree, i do not believe there sufficient ground to oppose the measure that allows gay marriages for others. you don't have to enter a gay marriage. your church does not have to conduct a gay marriage. you simply have to agree someone else can enter a gay marriage. other marriages of millions of straight people about the threat
because a few thousand gay people are permitted to join. what will they say? darling, are marriages overcome assert out john has just gotten engaged. [laughter] i appreciate the sincerity and serious points made and ensuring religious freedom is protected as a proper concern. we are told because they won't be a legal definition of consummation that some terrible for in the bill that many heterosexual marriages exist without consummation. for some, the objection is to let homosexual connect itself. [inaudible] >> i'm grateful -- does he agree with me that achieving legal equality is part of the battle for that?
>> i strongly agree with my honorable friend. i believe many who do not share this view nevertheless had a principal concern that gay marriage should be redefining the institution for everyone coming at parliament has repeatedly done this. if marriage had been redefine in 1836, they wouldn't be any civil marriages. if it had been redefine in 184960 girls would still be able to get marriage. if i had been redefine in 1869, we wouldn't have today is to force the end all of these changes were opposed. >> i think the honorable member for giving way in the advocacy of the cause of equal marriage. they cannot agree the the definition of marriage is in fact what it means most of us as individuals. it's a lovely long-term relationship something to be celebrated and open to all in
our society. >> i agree with the honorable gentleman this is an institution that should now be open to all. when i was born, homosexual conduct with a crime. not someone ago is possible to someone because they were gay. people did not dare to be open. so much has changed in my lifetime. this progress should be celebrated, but we should not believe the journey is complete. i think of the children still bullied at school were real foe of other friends and family fixup fan. i think title role models still don't feel able to come out in the signal we send today about whether the law fully recognizes our society will really matter. above all, advantage to people, faithful and loving who want their commitment to be recognized as the days for
straight couples and that is what this bill is about. millions will be watching us today, not just gay people, but those who want to live in a society where people are treated equally and accepted for who they are. they remember rose. i hope once again this house would've the right thing. >> edward leigh. >> we should indeed treat each other with tolerance and everybody else's own understanding. but what redefine today is where the english law should declare the first time two people at the same can marry. parliament is of course sovereign. we have to be very careful that law and reality do not conflict. 1648, seeking to make a point said parliament can do anything
but make a man or woman a man. of course in 2004 we did exactly that with the gender recognition act. for now propose to make equally stark changes with the essence of marriage and join the civil partnership debates, i was given solemn assurances on the house by people sitting opposite to me now. the civil partnership would not lead to full same-sex marriage and i'm happy to give way to the honorable gentleman who gave his assurances to me. >> can i say assurances from me are not necessarily going to determine the future of what happens in parliament. [shouting] i say to the honorable gentleman, several members have dirty racist manner of what i said in that debate. it's true at that time civil partnership was the be-all and end-all. since then i've enter the
partnership and believe the world has moved on. many members voted against civil partnerships who now know britain's mind has changed somewhat to reflect that in the change of the law. >> the way some of us have is the world may move on again in many assurances we are now being given may not count for very much. >> it matters not what anybody says that anybody untrue -- in any debate. the point made -- it's not the first time he's been wrong, by the way. but i am one of those who voted for civil partnerships come expected not to be the end of the story for thousands of people in our current jury and would really like to be married in mass. at this bill is about.
>> and that is precisely what i want to talk about. what is the nature of marriage? the catechism of the roman catholic church beautifully described as an institution that anybody of any faith who supports marriage would equally echo these words. marriage is a covenant for a man and woman established themselves in the partnership for the whole of life. it is by its nature or nurture is good of spouses in procreation and education of offspring. what does this tell us? marriage i believe and many millions of fellow citizens believe marriage is by its nature a heterosexual union. it is bringing together of one man and one woman. it is not just a romantic attachment, which can exist between any two people. it is not just a relationship. it is the active marriage which
by its very definition requires two people of opposite not. if you take a basic requirement of a, what ui love to it is not marriage. marriage has always been evolving, but this, mr. deputy speaker, it is a revolution. i am left with six children. i realize every married couple is able to have the gift of children were indeed may want to, get this doesn't change the fact that concept of marriage is always bestowed with the addition of procreation. every marriage is procreative potential that it brings together biologically to elements in it to generate a child. the very reason marriages underpinned with laws is because children are usually often result from that. they need protecting from the tendency of adults to break ties
and cast. marriage exists to keep parents exclusively committed to one another. that is the best, most stable environment for children. if marriage was solely about the relationship between two people, we would not bother to enshrine in law, nor would every culture and society and religion for thousands of years investors so much importance because it is about protecting the future. marriage then it's not about me, me, me. it is not about my race, not about my relationships being legally facilitated. it is about a secure environment for creating and raising children based on my phone commitments and exclusivity. marriage is also profoundly pro-woman since it is generally man who is a great propensity to
wander off into other relationships. women in general that early left holding the baby. we have to get away from it to ever on life can be forced through merciless present of a quality. i'm a conservative. i do believe we should be concerned with the quality, but not the expense of every other consideration, not the extensive tradition. we should be in the business of protecting institutions and cultural heritage, otherwise what is a conservative party for? indeed, we alienate people who voted for all their lives, leaving him with no one to vote for. i would just add this comment from a lady who'd e-mailed me. as a gay woman in a 24-year-old relationship, commend you for that nonsense. the civil partnerships to give legal protections. i contracted one in 2006.
i've been a conservative for 50 years and see this nonsense as a final kick in the teeth for conservatives. i for one will be burning tonight to reclaim my support for the future of our children and the essence of traditional marriage. >> thank you, mr. speaker. it's an honor to follow commander. i feel this over the last six months, and stress about the way the debate is managed in the pressure pushed on so many colleagues from pressure groups and churches who in my view should have known better. i feel i've been laboring under false sense of security given the changes that have been made legislatively over the past decade i did become a state of
security. but i'm indebted to the prime minister, not just this bill, the changes he is brought about within my party, which has led to my own election and that of many others and has changed the faith of the parliamentary party. i do feel as a result of this debate, we have gone -- it may have gone to set sort come up with us upon one step backward in the modernization of the conservative party is not yet complete. i will give way to the honorable lady. >> ii think the honorable lady for giving way. i should like me been particularly angered and frustrated by tactics of the campaign director of the coalition for marriage was sent out e-mails urging people to write and say you a member this
bill and be held accountable it. we will tell your friends and family that we will not vote for you. members of this house should be voting, not on the basis of threat. >> the honorable lady made her point far better than i could have done myself. i would say the coalition for marriage and some of the churches have deliberately and consistently misinterpreted the government's intention by protect pain that we were forcing churches to marry same-sex couples. i was never the intention of this government. i and other colleagues would never have supported it. belatedly, only this week in the church of england has finally admitted it is not realistic or likely to churches will be forced to conduct same-sex weddings.
i made that point earlier. so easy to say that now whenever person amy who doesn't follow deliberations of details -- in great detail has said to me, it's about weddings and churches for gays, is in a? that is the misapprehension that many of my constituents opposed to this bill have labored under, including members of my own association i'd like to put on record my appreciation of those individuals who are treated with courtesy and respect such as i can this even without fear or favors. many many of them believe we are legislating for a gay weddings church and we are not and i'm satisfied by the advice of the attorney general that that is seven and contents of all possibility. refer to the courts and nobody can legislate against someone challenging something in the courts, but the case was makes
it infinitesimally unlikely that any such challenge would succeed. yes, i'll give way to the honorable lady. >> making a speech, does she agree to as many countries within europe who are members of the council of europe would introduce same-sex marriage while at the same time protecting religious freedom? it is not beyond a man or woman to do the same. >> i think the honorable lady for intervention and she's absolutely right. in fact, the case in 2010 from austria and the european court of human rights that there is no obligation on any country on any secular government to guarantee the right of gay people to marry each other. another point made in this debate, mr. deputy speaker is a quality as in all that matters only are different and we should
celebrate differences. i agree we should celebrate other differences, but having been different for most of my life, mr. deputy speaker, i can assure you being treated equal is welcomed indeed, have some way to go not just in the area for gays people and i believe my party should never flinch to continue this progression otherwise we may end up like the republican party who lost the election last indicative on for the socially conservative agenda. while i support hasn't been raised and that is a gays people have been allowed to marry as long as they choose someone of the opposite not. this is an politics for reasons that are well known. many gay people today appreciate
the civil partnership, but do want more, do what the status of marriage and i'm particularly thinking of the younger people who didn't have to grow in the environment some of us have had to grow up then and i support their right to declare their love in a state of marriage and i can assure members this will not undermine tradition. >> mr. deputy speaker, i want to set misgivings about this bill. i'm not going to vote against tonight because i don't see it being scrutinized by committee, but expect to vote against the third reading. my honorable friend in some of his interventions on this topic has been right to do so not on the basis that it must be true, but the basis of church of england was the custodian of marriage in britain were hundreds of years and for many people still lives.
ibm back >> can i point the church of england has never been a custodian of government. >> that is absolutely right. the 1562 version of the church of england for the past 251 years set out three reasons for marriage, the first of which ordained for the procreation of children to be brought up a good lord. essential problem of this bill, it seems to me, introduces a definition of marriage, which comprises numbers two and three from that list, but drops number one. ..
they are barely mentioned in the bill. the bill aims not the benefit of marriage to people excluded from and at the moment, but it is doing it at the price of taking a wait a significant part of its meeting. children are not the reason marriage has always been so important. purely about a loving relationship between two people in the way this at the beginning of the debate it would have been much less important than it is actually been. does that matter? well, yes, i think it does
because it is right for society to recognize tibet as marriage does, the value to us all of us, the contribution of those who both bring children into the world and then bring them up as well. that is the ideal that the current definition of marriage reflects. it will, i think, be a mistake to lose the value which that places on the creation in bringing up of children, and in the end it will be children who lose out if we do. >> the gentleman's argument about the importance to marriage for children. is he suggesting that children should only be adopted by people who are married? or that somehow children who are within the same sex parentage have a love their right to five lesser right to have loving parents who are married. >> i am not cite -- saying
either of those. i am simply making the point remains the ideal for the two parents who have together created a child to bring that child out. legal equality, mr. deputy speaker, was delivered quite rightly by the introduction of several partnerships, and if there are weaknesses in those arrangements they should be put right. in particular, i see no problem with same-sex unions being celebrated places of worship were congregation's want to do so. same-sex couple can have the same wish to affirm and to have affirmed a lifelong exclusion of commitment as a man and woman getting married. we should value that and be willing to recognize and to celebrate it. but this bill does not a firm that same-sex unions are equal with marriage rather that they are the same as marriage when in reality they aren't. they are different. and mr. deputy speaker, i do think if we adopt a watered-down
definition of marriage based on two names from the church of england's list instead of all three. >> mr. deputy speaker, it is quite obvious from the tenor of this debate that this proposed legislation presents many problems of people both in this chamber and beyond. at the constituents and colleagues who are now they're prejudiced or homophobic the new -- genuinely believe it is impossible to change the meaning of marriage, which is what this bill seeks to do. people with deep religious beliefs see this attempt to change the law as an undermining of a fundamentalist egyptian. now i think by its very introduction this bill has no undermined the perception of civil partnerships that was so widely celebrated only a few years ago. i understand many your people
are not bothered by this, but many older people do not understand this government's imperative to change the law in this area. they're may be a case for examining any legal precedent that exists for same-sex couples and stressing in the weaknesses in the civil partnership legislation. but this legislation was not in our manifesto. it was not in the condition agreement, and it was not in the speech. it should not have been introduced before a much fuller discussion had taken place, particularly, i believe, within my own party. i give way. >> the lady shares my puzzlement as to why the prime minister specifically not refers to it just before an election. >> i think there has been many conflicting messages coming of government, and i think that the hon. lady has just alluded to one of them.
indeed, at a meeting that i attended in the house of lords only a few weeks ago with the then new archbishop of canterbury one of the bishops actually told of the church has not been fully consulted. i believe only a few weeks ago the church should have been fully involved in all discussions on this matter. if the government had, perhaps, thought to redefine single partnership or indeed if they could really ensure their religious freedom that they're promising would stick, i think more people would have been persuaded to support this legislation. >> would see except that some of us, not exactly ideal that we may find ourselves abstaining because that is the only way of making the point of why we are debating has merit and it has not been the case. and while i would like to make clear that i am not emphatically
opposed to change to my duty to be convinced that it is necessary that it be thought through. not able to deal with the basic details. i really do despair. >> i think that she has spoken for many people in this house actually on both sides. i think the secretary of state is doing the impossible in this bill, trying to change the meaning of the word marriage, and as no government is able to protect religious freedom, i am going to have a problem supporting this bill tonight. he said that our issues, well, i believe the issues with this legislation cannot be resolved. therefore it is with great sadness i'm going to vote down this bill tonight. >> thank you, mr. deputy
speaker, i thought long and hard about speaking in this debate. i genuinely feared the current debate and our colleagues would speak to oppose the bill. when they talked about the marriage making them physically sick or when a colleague suggested it was a step towards realizing polygamy -- >> give way. >> i won't. >> they need to remember that there are people involved, people's lives are involved and we sugar rather word spoken in this chamber hurt far beyond this chamber will we speak. the deputy speaker, when i was elected to this house in may may 2010 it was, perhaps, the proudest day of my life. i should point out actually it was the second brightest day of my life because the proudest day was when i entered into my civil partnership which i did six years ago with my partner of 21
years. our civil partnership was a huge step forward for us, and yet many argue that we should be content with our civil partnership. after all, it affords all the same legal protections as marriage. but i ask my married colleagues, did you get married for legal protections it afforded? did you bell on monday and say, darling, please give me the protections marriage affords us? of course you didn't. my friends and my family, this is why love, this is 2im, this is to my waist to spend the rest of my life with. deputy speaker, i am not asking for special treatment. i am simply asking for equal treatment. now, deputy speaker, people have talked about defense. but sometimes it's about doing
what is right, not what is popular, and i congratulate the prime minister on leading on this. this issue has caused anxiety amongst colleagues and the monks constituents. some argue it's not the right time. it is the right time and we should simply get on with it. so much of our time in this house is spent on technical legislation. today we have an opportunity to do what is right, to do some good. i am a member of this parliament , and i say to my colleagues, i sit alongside you in committee in the bond and in the tea room, cue alongside you in the petition lobby, when it comes to marriage why are you
asking this to stand apart and to join a separate queue? i ask my colleagues, if i ever equal in this house, give me every opportunity to be equal. today we have a chance to set that right, and i hope colleagues will join me in voting yes deceiving. >> year. >> with that. >> deputy speaker, the campaign for marriage. done a fantastic job informing them of the members of this house but also a wider public about this issue. i oppose this legislation for five key reasons. first, i believe it is simply wrong in principle. to overturn centuries of established custom requires a proper explanation beyond the equality mantra. what shock of wisdom suddenly right upon my right hon. friend which has been denied distinguished forbearers. how come they think they know better than the established church? the chancellor to pray and aid
the arguments that marriage has evolved over time is simply disingenuous. up pointed out, nothing like this has been proposed in parliament ever before. this is a massive change. the core fabric of our society to a challenge it poses to the whole institution of marriage. similar legislation in 2005 and has fallen by 20%. since all research shows that children raised in marriage and -- merrill households with a mother and father tend to fare better than those are not the government threatens to damage the life chances of the nation's children that did the prime minister or any other party leader has a mandate. since it was not in any party's manifesto let alone the coalition agreement.
the target gross aid on the grounds that he gave a commitment in 2009 and a respectable that. he instructed that commitment, but not to the commitment to introduce tax breaks for married couples, and he has never invented a policy which he specifically ruled out that the last general election. >> believes there should be done is have a draft bill with a freak registered scrutiny. >> absolutely, and i think that to initially cautious about constitutional change, but not this administration. sweeping reform exchange and the success is allow this all to be rushed through a timetable motion subject to a three line. this is no way to treat parliament or colleagues to have strong convictions either way on what is a very sensitive and
informed tribute to all of us and our constituents. thirdly, if there is no mandate, where is the demand for this change? yesterday's daily mail, the daily mail. [laughter] i found out that -- [inaudible conversations] the daily mail. found out that only one in 14, that is 7 percent of those questioned thought this should be a priority. other probe found that only 6 percent of the ethnic communities, the very people this party is apparently out to woo. i give way to my right and honorable friend. >> i think my hon. friend. the majority of the population apparently don't care very much about what they're talking about today. for those people that do care, in my constituency, written to be in huge numbers saying please
oppose it. far greater those people who will be rejoicing, would you agree with me on that? >> i agree with my honorable and gallant friend, from my constituents, the perfect legislation. this legislation if it passed. so forcefully the civil partnerships which provide most of the benefits of marriage to those in the gay community. reservations at the time were reassured that they should not be seen as the forerunner of today's bill. in another place in 2004, i love to put our position very clearly. rights and responsibilities to people in same-sex committed relationships. we do not see it as analogous to marriage.
we do not see it as a drift towards gay marriage. clearly those beyond today's proposals feel the sense of the obligation rising from those assurances given to years ago. how can we ensure that this is now going to be the end of this business or whether there will be more? my right and honorable friend has alluded to consequences. the department granted, i quote : no teacher will be required to go against their beliefs. doing it very gallant job under difficult circumstances. there will be no requirement teachers to promote same-sex marriage, but she added ominously, obviously would not be expected to be teachers to be offensive or discriminative in any way. what kind of guidance does that give the teachers in our country who have had a profound projection.
mr. deputy speaker, i am not a modernizer. [laughter] i believe marriage can only be between a man and woman. i will leave the consultation process was a complete sham oppressed by the established church the penniless division within the conservative party. the nation's faces much more serious challenges which the government needs to address. and therefore open prate that this measure will be rejected if not in this place in the other place. and also because i know that the
overwhelming number of my constituents are also against this bill. under one fundamental misconception, and that is the man or the women are equal before the law and therefore they are the same. they're not the same. men and women are different and maybe equal before the law, what we cannot force them into a marriage when we have a marriage which is set up of the moment as between a man and woman. one man and one woman to the exclusion of all others. we ignore that fact at our peril.
>> my hon. friend raises a good point which is the sufficiency which many of us had. i'm curious. the actual age profile. surely, like most of the estimate is those people who tend to be much older, 60 plush -- 60 plus. if any of my children thought that i was actually going to oppose this bill, these -- the vast majority support this bill. >> we must have intervention that everyone wants to contribute. and it is important we hear everybody's voice. >> i cannot answer for my hon. friend. only constituency in the country. so i put that on the record. these proposals were not in our manifesto. they're not in the coalition agreement, and they are expressly ruled out three days
before the general election. in 2004 was a member of the standing committee of the civil partnership to build, and i led 89 divisions in that standing committee. i argued then then they argue now that we are -- we should be giving status to civil partnerships which is the same for both men and women. it's interesting that during the course of this debate, a number of hon. members of both sides have said that they think the civil partnerships should be extended to heterosexual as well as to homosexuals. i raise this, a prime minister at a meeting profile two years ago. tell me that he is against all marriage like arrangements. the view. we should exclude sold partnerships and that the bill
should be amended to delete several partnerships in the future allowing possible partnerships to commence. the alternative is to allow several partnerships. if we allow several partnerships i think that if we leave the situation were several partnerships are only available to same-sex couples at the same time as giving the same-sex couples access to marriage we would not be able to argue a case in the european court of human rights. we should be discussing this bill and committee and submitting it to a pre legislative scrutiny. that is why i shall be voting against the motion and against the carrier over motion because
what is an obscenity is that the government persuaded this house to an institute carryover motions of a standard form of the standing orders on the basis that we would then be able to the carryover bills subject to pre legislative scrutiny and then brought forward as a proper bill. what is happening now is the government not having -- having any motion is not having a draft bill, not even having any pre legislative scrutiny but trying to push this bill through very quickly because they see -- >> do you not also think that it is really quite outrageous that the committee has not been taken on an all in the house? any measure of this should be taken on the floor of the house direct isn't my right and
honorable friend agree? >> absolutely. i think also we should have taken today is for the second meeting -- meeting in debate. also with the prime minister on this issue, but there is no reason to be at odds with the prime minister and issues a procedure and process. if the prime minister is really interested in the privacy of this chamber and is not what, why will he agree to having a long discussion over this bill. this bill should be up for as a fresh bill and the time between now and then should be spent having proper scrutiny. very important advice when we were discussing the civil partnerships bill. we had not heard from either select community because it is being rushed through. the consequence of that is that when it gets to the other place, i hope the other place would give it a pretty bloody nose.
>> mr. deputy speaker, can i take a minute. i was the minister that took through the agenda recognition bill. although there would be much more, look back on this moment with great pride in her career. the measure of the civilized democracy and how we treat minorities. wear rubber those who served on the report. after you campaign for men -- many years, a gay sex and those including in my local authority in the 1980's wanted to fund paid groups come see our children understanding these complex issues and face clause 28, and that might say, had we not pass that clause we might have come to this moment a little sooner. and so it is to them that we pay tribute as we move forward in the way we do.
>> the introduction of section 28, if it had not been introduced three might have contradicted much earlier. >> my hon. friend is right, and that was the most pristine of this house where we turned on an important minority. now, i received many letters from people for whom this is all coming to send. they say that the speed of change for lesbian, gay, and bisexual rights is happening to abruptly for them to comprehend, but the country they live in, the traditions that the live by, and the people that they live next to a transforming in ways that make them feel uncomfortable and undermined. they're not racist, but they say not know, later. and to some extent the sympathize. as much as i would want britain to always be the beating heart
of a radical and progressive change, it isn't. it has always had a small beacon that runs through. an instinct of change that should always be organic, and need for change to be owned by the people not imposed from up high and that we must respect that. i will be respecting that when i vote for this bill. it does respect religious freedom and tradition by submitting rather than maintaining the organization to conduct. it is in the end of an organic journey from criminality to equality to the a community that began over a half century ago. this change is right and necessary, and the time is now. this is all unnecessary. why do we need came marriage a we already have several partnerships, they said. they are the same, except to
five separate but equal, they claim. let me speak frankly. separate but equal is a fraud. separate but equal is the language that tries to push rosa parks to the back of the bus. separate but equal is the motive that determines that black and white people could not possibly drink from the same water fountain to meet at the same table, or use the same toilet. separate but equal is the words that justifies spending -- sending children to different schools that would bail them ann them to a life of poverty. is an excerpt from the segregationist and the racist. it is this same statement, the same ideas, and the same delusion that we borrowed in this country to say that women could vote, but only if they were married and only when they were over 30. it is the same meditate that gave wait for my dad being a citizen when he arrived here in 1956 but refused by landlords
and proclaimed no rights, no irish, though -- entrance to we were, who our friends could be and what our lives to become. this is not separate but equal. it is separate and discriminated , separate and repressed, separate and browbeaten, separate and subjugated. separate is not equal. so let's be rid of it. as long as there is one for us and another for them, we allow the barriers to exist and the acceptance goes unchallenged. as long as our statute suggests that up between two men and two women is unworthy of being recognized her marriage we allowed a run of homophobia to affect us. we entrench in society where 20,000 homophobic crimes take place to -- take place each year. work a thousand people have witnessed, formidable being at work in the last five years. i am a christian. i don't -- i go to mass.
>> it is a privilege to hear this extraordinary impassioned. the lives of those around him. >> that's totally except the manner in which my hon. friend has put this to mark. people who share the same values of christian ideas that i do on a sunday morning, and i know to be caring, loving, and understanding people. another resent this. the extremes. poisoned an important debate with polygamy and bestiality.
when i married my wife i understood our marriage to have to important dimensions committee expression of love, fidelity, and the jollity and, of course, a commitment to raise children. is the case that they men and women can raise children. this house made that decision. that is -- did jesus is no was born illegitimate with the death or about his name in a barn among animals. he would stand up for minorities. that is what is right. >> here. >> next on c-span2, the executive director of the national gay and lesbian task force on the state of their movements. after that, a forum on technology advances in manufacturing. then a discussion on the future of u.s. manufacturing.
>> older and more mature, absolutely more strategy to achieve happiness in life is to make that you're part marital. you will not achieve it. instead you will then there being narcissistic, self involved, caring about your own pleasures and their own satisfactions of life as your paramedical. what i have found is that happiness is best found it as a byproduct of other things. a byproduct of meaningful work and family and friends and good health and love and care. involving ourselves in fundamentally trying to have integrity and being a good person. >> conscious capitalism, whole foods co-founder and ceo john mackey examines how the inherent
good about business and capitalism can lead to a better world the sunday night at 9:00 p.m. on after words on c-span2. find more book tv on line. like us on facebook. >> the head of the gay and lesbian task force, her annual state of the movement speech calling for an executive order to protect federal workers from discrimination based on sexual orientation. discusses the fight for equal rights for transgendered people of the military. this is about 45 minutes. ♪ >> i have listed on my face from kate. if not, you have to come back and do it again. [laughter] well. i just have to say this. thank you for that introduction, mr. president. [laughter] i have always wanted to say
that. oh, hello, atlanta. if you are from the south give a shot of to make some noise if you're from the south. [applause] >> it is great to be here with so many southern activists. if your site to be in atlanta make some noise. [applause] this is going to be a good few days. there are many, many years when we have come together here in creating change, where we could still feel the sting of the ballot box. we were worried about the havoc that an anti lgb t president might cause for our lives, our country, and our world. we have come together in years when our renewed hopes that some
state referendum would confirm a swing in the national mind-set were dashed. there have been years when we would come here to lift each other out, to assure each other that change would happen, that change was happening despite our losses and despite our fear, that something might never change the national sentiment, but this is not that year. this is not one of those years. this year we come together to celebrate. this year, this year was the year when enough people stood together, joined together and said it death, enough. enough was being in margent --
marginalize, being treated like we and our families and our votes don't count. [applause] women, latinos, african-americans, and progressive people of faith came together in communities across the country and made the deciding difference at the ballot box. last year for those of you are here you will recall that both been jealous, president of the naacp and night made an urgent call to fight the voter suppression efforts that were under way, and we did. [applause] in 2012 those who sought to deny our voices went too far. as people of color and people in poor communities went to the polls determined to have their voice, they stood there and they stood there and they stood there
until they could cast their vote and be heard. that to my friends, that to my friends is victory over oppression and victory over systemic racism. [applause] it is also a victory for human dignity. yes, we have got to do so much more. think of this. a record number seven members of congress. we were afraid of keeping the ones we had. seven members of congress with the number of firsts. as said, including the first women senator from the great state of wisconsin, senator tammy baldwin, and in an historic first our first out bisexual member of congress representative kissed it from
arizona. our first outage japanese-american congressman of california. i saw all of them earlier this month when they all got sworn in, and i tell you, they're ready to go. they're ready to go. the tables are turning. this year a broad coalition of voters showed up for young immigrants in maryland and approved a statewide dramatic showing our country was true opportunity looks like. and this year, as noted, voters returned barack hussain obama to the white house who has not only demonstrated with his actions that he is that most algy bt's
supported president history of our country, but with his inclusion of the 1969 stonewall rebellion in his inaugural speech he squarely placed lgb t equality in the long lineage of movement that has had watershed moments from seneca falls to selma. and we will work to get him to say more than just. as i sat at the front of the capitol honored to attend the inauguration holding my daughter's hand, listening to the president, watching that fears bettina sonya sotomayor swearing in the vice-president hearing a more inclusive benediction, being transported
by the poetry of richard bagram, a gay cuban immigrant, and, of course, the invitation by civil rights leader, well, let's just say i thought, yes, yes, this is the country are no, this is a country i want my daughter to grow up in. what happened on the steps of the capitol earlier this week was in so many ways remarkable. real change, but it was also made inevitable because of the work queue in this room and many across the country have done for decades. you made that happen. you made those words come out of our presidents mouth. and this year after losing 31 times at the ballot box, 31
times, but who's counting, this year we won big gun marriage. we'd be the opponents in minnesota and maine and maryland and washington state. if you are from those states, stand up and raise your hand so that we can applaud you. [applause] >> if you posted on facebook or twitter or otherwise encourage people to vote the right way and stand or raise your hand, if you contributed in any way to these winds, if you gave of your time or money stendhal raise your hand and let us applaud you. [applause] thank you.
thank you. the task force was proud to dedicate our staff, money, grass-roots training, and development, support, social media machine, expertise in all four of the states to contribute to a history-making election. in fact, led by the task force's organizers and staff i would like to publicly thank our task force staff who worked on marriage, the maryland. >> translator: and against the death penalty in california. thank you, a task force staff. [applause] as always, the task force did what we do best. working at the grass-roots level organizing engaging voters demand this year we expanded that focus by mobilizing progressive people of faith.
guess what, it worked. we knocked on doors, spoke to congregations, lost their grids, and had thousands of 1-on-1 conversation that changed people's hearts and change people's votes. [applause] and what makes our movement's success, this last year even more powerful, more meaningful, and more lasting is that it was not just the community, it was not just people who worked uncelebrated these winds. in fact, some of the very first call is that the mills that i got when the president came out last spring and when there's a quality one in state sector states after states after states , those were from leaders of civil rights, labor, women, and other non lgb t
organizations. if there is one message we can take away from election night 2012 it is that we are not alone. [applause] we are not alone as a movement. we are not allowed as a people, and we need to now make sure that no one else's alone either. i am thinking about so many people here in the south and elsewhere that still face isolation. the activists fighting and living under george's reprehensible immigration law. i'm thinking about the young women fighting for reproductive rights and justice in the world, often unwelcoming various and
those still living in branding debilitating poverty, the kind of poverty we don't even want to embellish still exists in our country because of the very fact is still does serves as a reminder that our economy and public policies still plays favorites. [applause] for 40 years the task force has been at the forefront of our movements work for freedom, justice, liberation, and the quality. and for 25 years we have been meeting here at creating change to share strategies to gain skills, and plan the future. forty years does not seem so long today know that there is someone that our back. the momentum of change growing
and a little spring in our step, but we can never forget what it took us to get to the state, the struggles, the sacrifices, the loss of the pain we have been through as a movement. those strong shoulders and brave hearts that held us up and move us forward, some are here today to enjoy the fruits of our labour, but many are not because of hiv and aids and cancer or the sheer weight of what oppression does to a person. to honor them we must not rest. we must not slow down. we must not stop preaching, and we must never forget where we came from. and so today as a test for celebrates its 40th anniversary we must look both
backward and forward. like other social justice movements before us we have been fortunate to have a dynamic determined smart and passionate leaders willing to step forward to expose our nation's disturbing and painful gaps in freedom and then call on us to dig for our moral compass and push our country forward. leaders like del mar. in and phyllis lion who still carry on, despite the passing of del. frank kennedy, barrick lost and, if your margin. [applause] despite all their accomplishments i suspect not one of them would claim to have
made the loan. in communities across the country they came together with lovers, friends carry compatriots in the struggle for human rights, they created families. chosen families. well the community suddenly did not invent the idea of a dozen family i believe through necessity and through our struggle to survive and to love for the may have perfected. [applause] i have been in this movement along time, and we have changed everything from the words we use to describe our love for each other to changing the words we use in our marriage campaigns. we learned over time and through more than a few losses what truly touches people's emotions and what changes their votes, that a vote is a personal thing,
that it is as much a thing of the harnesses of the mind. and we work, as we work to gain recognition of our relationships we have learned that talking about rights and privileges and obligations, all of those parts of marriage don't really touched people's hearts in the same way as talking about love and commitment. and so today, today i challenge us to take to heart the words family, love, and commitment, but let's not restrict or limit them to one view of what our families are supposed to look like. [applause]
let family and love and commitment expand our lives cannot restrain them. after all, from the very first moment of our modern movement we have given shape to the word family, not the other way around and we coming out of our experience have created beautiful, expensive, at chosen families. as the saying goes, an army of lovers or in the case of our movement an army of ex lovers often makes up our family. [applause] i am, of course, not speaking for myself. this is other people, of course. our movement must be one that embraces the many, many ways we create and choose family.
we want family that understand, has our back, picked this up when we needed, pushes us further would retire. a family that rocks in the door with everyone else has worked out. and that is how like to think of our movement and test for a family of four years. sure, it can seem a bit cliche to talk up the task force is a family, but to those who might think it is a cliche, all i have to say is, you don't know the task force. for 40 years the task force has been an incubator helping to create scores of organizations across the country, through our campaigns, initiatives, and through late-night meetings we are creating change. activists just like you and in fact many of you have created groups that have picked up the fight for people with hiv and aids, anti virus programs, youth
activism, the original campaigns to work against the so-called defensive marriage act and don't ask don't tell and strengthen our movements work against racism and for economic justice. [applause] it is why, as we celebrate 40 years of a task force it is really a celebration of our movement, celebration of you and your work, and there is one more group here today i want to welcome to our family. thanks to the los angeles elegy bt's center there is a group of 26 hiv aids and elegy bt activists here today from china and taiwan. [applause] [applause] [applause]
[applause] i look forward to spend time with them. we went through a lot of pizzas, and i have to tell you, i am so inspired by your vision and your creativity and your drive. they are the founders of the lgb t movement in china and taiwan, and we welcome you. [applause] again and again we show up for each other, add new people to our family and unfortunately at times this members of our family. we have had an unusual number of deaths this year. our staff and board members lost
parents, grandparents, a key task force volunteers and tragically a child. and we lost a dear friend and co-worker in san the green who, as many of you know, was an extraordinary woman who worked for the task force for a decade and greeted people at creating change at the registration desk every year. sandy, sandy was not afraid to say there was a black straight woman and was part of a family working for civil rights for all [applause] iso wish -- i so wished she could have seen the president's speech. she would have loved it. but it does not weaken us. it does not have to weaken us.
in this room of our chosen family as well as those who are mall the way to 5 miles away and could not be with us we have known for a long time that unfortunately there are those to dedicate themselves to trying to terrace apart from a separate us, undermine the social progress and justice we have one. it is certainly something we have seen here in the south, something we still see. as a movement to we can learn from our brothers and sisters in the south about sticking together as a social justice family, about perseverance, and about resistance. the politics of division and greed, the vestiges of slavery that still shape opinion and policies and still contribute to
a modern systemic disenfranchisement that is yet to be overcome, this is our struggle to. [applause] and those who seek to divide us need to take a look at this room . more than 3,000 out, proud, determined, not intimidated, not going anywhere, reaffirming our chosen family, our bonds of love together, nothing, nothing can divide us, not after what we have been through together. i saw the true power of this commitment and this trend on election night. i was in maine of election night . a few in the room. after a late night celebration and being up until 4:00 a.m. waiting of the news of the brothers and sisters in other
states, i got up, headed to the airport the next morning, proudly wearing my shockingly bright orange yes on one t-shirt i understand minnesota knows that, person after person almost all of them kept coming up and saying finally, finally, finally there were sharing in our joy. as i was enjoying as a laboratory lobster roll at the airport for breakfast. [laughter] they have really good lobster rolls of the airport there, this woman came up to me and introduced herself as soup -- of course, drawn by my orange t-shirt. a long time meter and a captain in the u.s. coast guard. she gave me what is called a challenge : from the u.s. coast guard given for going above and beyond the call of duty, and she
said this is to remind you of who you are working for, who your helping, and by implication how much we still have left to do and what we will need to do to defend our winds. i was inspired by how even though she has privilege, she will benefit as a service member from the repeal of don't ask don't tell, and she and her partner who she has known since he was a kid will now have the choice to get married if they want to. she has challenged me to remember that every day for work remains incomplete to. those of us who do have some privileges must never mistake that for real equality for
freedom for all. [applause] i carried this challenge going with me now. it is a constant weight in my pocket reminding me that as we win in some areas, like marriage, we must always be clear that we are not of 1-issue movement. [applause] we are not a marriage-only movement. we are not an employment-only movement. we are not in the other all believe movement. we are a movement that cares broadly about the issues that affect our lives.
some days i wake up astonished at the pace of progress. but i also wake up angry about the lack of basic, basic protections for lgb t people and families, and i think about how, as we are in the spotlight because of our progress on marriage it can actually be more challenging to draw attention to the many other issues that affect our lives. we must educate our own community, and we must educate our country. we must choose, as a basic moral value, never to leave any of our movements family behind. [applause] even though we have made extraordinary progress in states
that now have marriage equality, and i am thankful i am married. guess what, in a number of states where we have marriage equality we still do not have the protections for lgb t people. think about it. in the coming months thousands of couples will go to maine to maryland, washington, and the other states in d.c. where marriage is legal, friends and family will surround them, and they will have the weddings of their dreams. they, like our straight friends, will naturally go home to a place a picture, perhaps of their wedding other desk work, and some of them will be fired . they will get fired simply because they are gay, lesbian, bisexual, or transgendered, and it is perfectly legal to do so. in four states where marriage equality is legal, a couple can invite their transition their friends and they're wedding, but if those friends try to check into a hotel they could easily
and legally be denied a room simply because they are transgendered. .. can be left behind by our movement and by our country. [applause]
and the movement as activists, and human beings, we're called in the very midst of our joy of our celebration to say it is not enough unless our entire family can experience full freedom justice, and equality. it is not enough for parents who send their children to school each day worried, feared she would return home with a black eye and broken rib and crushed self-esteem. it's not enough. when many of us believe we are safe but only because we have the economic privilege to move to a different city or neighborhood. that is not freedom. that is not freedom. [applause] you will never be -- you will never be free until every single one of us feels safe to express others sexually, intellectually,
and spirit and support our homes, places of work. >> i'm beyond hope. i know, i know that our movement can do something extraordinary. we set our intentions behind it. i know, we will not leave any one of us behind. we must not leave any of our families or family members behind. when we win federal marriage equality, we will. we must not leave behind the 31
states that will sit need to overturn the constitutional bans on marriage equality. [applause] we must not be satisfied with some state that's have marriage and others that do not. we must not leave behind those who will choose not to get married. [applause] we must not leave behind those in the 29 states that have no protection for lgbt people. we must not leave behind those just because they adopt live in a big city can't kiss their lover on the street. we must not leave behind the transgendered immigrations who has the true self-not honored as she is detained in the men's facility. [applause]
as we win in-housing, public accommodation and housing we will we must continue to ask who in our family is hurting. who is unable to live their lives completely free of prejudice and violence and persecution. this is our moment. this is our lgbt movement moment. but if we are to be truly transformational as movement, we must use this moment not only to benefit lgbt people, but to benefit the country as a whole. that is our leadership challenge as a movement. [applause] this year, i have seen hundreds of ways we stand with each
other, hold each other as family how we expand our hearts, love and commitment and compassion for each other. i have seen activists risk deportation by being out about being gay and an immigrant dare to tell the story of their whole identity. you'll get to meet them tomorrow. [applause] i have been with reproductive rights and justice leaders we work to make the connection between our two movements with this movement of the 0th anniversary roe v.wade. [applause] we have to overcome a hurnlgd to be who we are to survive. to survive another day.
we at the task force have been inspired and have inspired for forty years. and part behalf keeps us going for four decades is that we're an organization that is obsessively focused on getting things done on making concrete and tangible and real progress. so as we step in to the beginning of our next forty years, you can count on us to build power, take action, and create change. we will build power as we officially launch our online grassroots organizing academy. the most sophisticated online training program in the movement, and frankly, in many other movements. we will train and support over 1,000 grassroots activists each year and ensure a diverse and prepared leadership for a movement for years to come.
[applause] we will take action on a range of issues that effect the lives of lgbt people including pushing the president to issue an executive order to protect lgbt people from discrimination who work for federal contractors. that will affect millions of people across the country until congress can get its act together and pass the employment nondiscrimination act. [cheering and applause] we will be pushing -- we will be pushing to finish the work of burying don't ask don't tell by allowing transgendered people and get the same benefits as the straight peers. [cheering and applause] [cheering and applause] we will continue, we will continue to play a leadership role as we have for years in partnering with immigration rights organizations.
in advocating for the many areas of comprehensive immigration reform that effect our community including security for binational same-sex couples [applause] including respectful and appropriate treatment of transgender and hiv positive immigrants. [applause] and ensuring that families are not separate for years on end because of our immigration laws. [applause] and i will say it clearly, creating a path to citizenship is an lgbt issue. [applause]
we will create change. the task force will get smarter as we partner with states on ballot measures. in the coming month, the task force along with our colleagues at the ballot initiative strategy center will be sharing with a movement post election research we conducted that takes a hard look at how voters behave across ballot measures on a rake of issues like marriage and immigration. taxes and education. -- on exactly which voters will vote for and against us based on how they vote on other issues. we will build power, whether he take action, and we will create change. [cheering and applause] i believe, i believe that all
movements need guiding principles and values. a true north. and that ours must be love, commitment, and compassion. but it must be an expansive love. a broad commitment to the ways we create family and compassion that leads to action for those who are marginalized. today we have choices to make about the future of our movement, what will we stand for? what will we stand for? our task force, brother, poet, activist, and creator of change, william brandon -- what will we stand for? he died this year but his words
can still help to guide us. he wrote a poem titled "on the occasion of a victory for president elect, senator barack obama" first calls out our nation's history of slavery and then reads; stand up at the daven this new day. stand up and let your joy proclaim a new life, a new vision, a new way. stand up and protect what our fight has made. the battle has raged blood and pain. we shall overcome will be. we have overcome. stand up what has one can be taken away.
stand up, stand up, stand up. [applause] we must be a movement about possibility over privilege. expanding over narrowing. unity over separation. creating change over settling for what is. we are family. we won't leave any of you behind. thank you.
[cheering and applause] [cheering and applause] next on forum on technology advancing in manufacturing.
if someone paid him to write columns for $2,000. he sends them in and they publish six. he summons the editor and says, what the expect editor expects him to say. i wrote ten, you published six. what does the editor say? but we paid you. which is the standard answer and he said, well, maybe they weren't good enough. here is a check for the columns you didn't print $1,000 back. and then he asked why would you give back the money if the contract said $20,000. he was entitled to give it. yes, that was his business lesson. because he wanted to do business with the other party again. he wanted to be a good citizens. very rare behavior now and id admire that. traces life of the 30th president of the united states in "cool age "sunday night at
8:00. first lady helen after it on taft on discussing policies. >> i had the satisfaction of knowing almost about his as the politics and any situation. i think any woman can discuss with her husband topics of national interest. i became familiar with more than politics. it involved real statesmanship. william howard taft the only has been to serve as president and supreme court chief justice. she served as first lady in the c-span original series, first ladies influence and image. produced with the white house historical association. season ones begins february 18 on 9:00 p.m. eastern. at the atlantic magazine held an event on america's
manufacturing sector thursday. one session looked at the impact of technological advancement. representative from the m.i.t. and the ceo of 3-d printing company were part of the panel. this is just under an hour. [inaudible conversations] check. >> yeah. >> check your mic. i think we are on. >> okay. we're going go to the next panel now. my name is kevin delaney. i'm editor in chief the atlantic started a few months ago. it's online at and it's a global business news site covering some of the issues we're going to talk about today. i was a technology reporter for the "the wall street journal" for a number of years and the managing editor of the "the wall street journal's" website before them. then. the panel is focused on industry, the impact of tk on industry which has been a topic that has been discussed
throughout the day. we're going to do deeper and talk with people who have specific expertise in probably some of the core technology and the technology policy that effects manufacturing. i'm going to start by introducing our panelists. we'll start with neil gershenfeld. the director for the center of bits and at toms at imt. it's a center that explores the boundaries between computer science and physical signs. he's the author of a book called "fab" cho is focus order some of the issues that we'll talk about today. sitting next to him is tom joining us from the white house. he's the director of policy for the office of science and technology policy. senior adviser for science technology and innovation for the national economic council. he's on leave from d.c. berkeley. and next sitting to him is avi reichental. he's the ceo of 3-d systems which is one of the -- which is
the first 3-d printing company. that manufactured the first 3 ask d printed object thirty years ago. is that right? it was a cup. a cup. thirty years ago they manufactured that. sitting at the send rob atkinson. he's the founder of innovation foundation which is a think tank based on focused on technology issues. the obama administration appointed him to the national innovation and competitiveness strategy advisory board and among other things he's written books about innovation economics. so we're going to dive in. i want to start by talking about the moment in history in technology and talk about some of the technology elements that are coming together now to make this a meaningful discussion in a way that probably more truth than it it would have within a few years ago. i want to start with you avi reichental. do you want to .
>> absolutely. i personally think that we live in an incredible moment in the record of human history. because of the convergence of the -- together makes many creativity localized and possible. and specifically i'm talking about the convergence of infa knit computing power in the cloud mobile devices. our official intelligence -- [inaudible] and incredibly accurate and inexpensive sensor rick the one you in the kinnect xbox it can transform the way we educate, communicate, deliver pernlgized medical devices and many empower millions of people to begin to appropriate with brands and companies in manufacturing for themselves.
so i'm personally very excited. i think it's fortunate to be the resip yentd of the incredible convergence. >> neil? >> sure. >> so most everything you have heard about this technical future of manufacturing is wrong. [laughter] it's okay. if we have time we'll go to more details. there's a precise parallel. mainframe used by corporation and inventory and payroll. many computers used by work groups. lots of hard to use. unfriendly, lots of cable. e-mail, the internet, word processing, video game, computer art happied. hobbyiest computers hard to use. didn't do much inspired a generation for people like me. pc integrated it to the one box. the lesson from that we are pricily at the transition from
the computer to the hobbyist era. we're not the pc era. it is everything. communicationing processing storage and easy to use form. today it takes $1,000 $100,000 in equipment. we're transitioning to the hobbiest computers and ten to twenty years from the personal replicator which is one thing that makes everything. technically that is the interesting research. but the lesson from the story is that the internet was invited in the -- what's happening today is the invention how we live, work, and play with the technology. what it's going look like at the end of the oprah winfrey luges is different from what you see today. what it's doing is the same as what you can do today. the formal change. and the script that is playing out exactly verbatim when the big computers company said they are toys about pc before the business blew up. the manufacturing companies are looking at there saying it's
nice. play with your toys before their business blows up and new businesses will come. we're at the same amazing moment in history. i'll end at that moment the internet was doubling exponentially one, two, four eight, it was small but doubling expo potentially. they have been doubling exponentially. the straight doubling is going to explode. we're going talk about the economic impact. tom, do you want to? >> yeah. i think the interesting thing is if you look at why there's so much innovation that is occurring in internet and web and apps it's because the cost of trying something out is so low. so you can have the three people living on ramen noodles far couple of months and developing an application and putting it on the web and sighing if -- seeing for it takes off. >> it's been true in software. it's more true in . >> the question is whether the
new technologies create that same opportunity around manufacturing. so whether it's cat software getting easier to use. being able to -- [inaudible] access to entrepreneurs of cnn c machine tools. laser cutters, water cutters, 3-d printers for the cost of a gym moip. to me that's the interesting thing. whether in the same way that the internet and the cloud and open store software allowed the huge proliferation. the explosion of start-ups whether that same local innovation can occur. in the manufacturing space. you no longer have to invest in millions of dollars to go on -- develop it. >> we should talk about the impact where the technology will be felt in big corporations, in people who are hobbiest at the stage. before we do that. i want to hear about the
specific technologies that you believe will have the most impact when they're deployed in these uses. i want to hear from each one of you about the technologies most interesting, mostly excited and most significant. do you want to starting with kneel? >> what we're talking about how you turn data in to things and things in to data. shannon did it for communication. they we are doing it for manufacturing. digital manufacturing hasn't happened yet. in 1952 m.i.t. connected and computer and they have been computer controlled. today you can make modern technology. again, a rough number is $100,000 to buy 2d and 3-d electronics. if you want to create not just one thing but a self-sufficient complete technical modern facility. it's about 100 controlled machine. it's a suited of technologies. the real story technically coming now is not additive
versus impactive. it's analog versus -- when you build with lego the parts have coordination. the part to correct roar. the part you uni would. the frontier in digital manufacturing. the fundamental science isn't another computer controlled tool. it's putting codes and programs in to material. that is when you get the enormous scalability. you get the complexity. that's, for example, in technical trash goes away. you can unbuild as well as build. so the suite of machines today is a surrogate using different things by eventually in the deep sense coding construction. it may sound like an abstract distinction. >> it sounds like science fiction. >>st it the same abstract distinction telephone calls versus the internet or analog computers. the number of research groups are studying for molecules up to
buildings how to code construction and materials with information. that's the scientific revolution. >> can you give an example in our lives how we might encounter exactly this? at some point in the future? >> it's coming in a few years. and so let me describe three different projects in my lab working on coded construction. one is making things that work like -- engineer and it using it to sort of 3-d print molecular nanostructure and the reason we're doing that is to help with the creation of life. the design of organism as the ultimate 3-d printing project. that's with huge imi police stations for molecular manufacturing. on microns we're making -- think of leg go. but microleg go. instead of having a billion dollar factory making and integrated circuit we snap microleg go with the table top
marine with 3-d electronics. we're working with aerospace industries. to make discretely assembled compos it lego you snap together jumbo jets. it sounds of like 3-d printing. your leaking discreet parts with information. on each of the scales, we're building a that build with things like leg go bricks but with different material processes with the scales. >> and the living organic lego bits, the first example you mentioned presumably is medical applications. >> that's applications for health care, biomanufacturing, bioengineering things like that. and understand everything i'm
describing now about the research, is knew to many computers other than molecular biologists. that's what they do for a living. they code to construct. it's not added or strabtive. it's discreet asemible or disassembling. we are building what you think as that macroscale machinely for the intellectual scale. >> what industrial technology cutting edge we're talking about here do you think is most significant? >> so the role of the government is really to invest in abroad portfolio. and not to have necessarily a specific view about that's the answer. >> you won't tell your personal favorite? >> the nsf is investing in the center for bytes and at toms. one area that is interesting is intersection between engineering and biology. we not thought of bilge as a platform for manufacturing. in the same way we had the huge improvement of our ability to
read dna we have gone from $100 million for the first human genome to rapidly approaching $100,000 genome. ..
but here is the deal in terms of what we do. half of the pointers that we saw today and that's been true for the last two years going to direct manufacturing applications. where and how are they being apply to you day. server f-18 and service today are printed and have been printed for the last 10 years and we are now working with air force and they have 35 suppliers to turn this should the same technology to cf 35. every invisible line minor u.k. and 65,000 miners manufactured daily or printed.
>> those are the dad told -- >> in this line braces. the 65,000 daily. stsn of mass customization are being printed have been printed for a decade and is growing. most dental restoration if you investigate a little bit how the dental lab supplies are down taste, most of your crown bridge in plan and dentures under structures being printed and have been printed. the hearing made a person uses today, 100% of the inner ear canal devices with electronics is printed and has been printed for a few years. most of the guided implants if you look at companies that conformists and others are using today disposable printed guides
and tools. and i can go on and on. so these are practical applications were today companies that had 10 years business models launched businesses and scale to significant commercial success than the same as true. increasingly there is a combination for high temperature complex assemblies that get combined. and so what i wanted to say it is in the here and now there is an creasing adoption of printing because it is flexible, combines many different difficult assemblies into one and allows for infinite complexity because it's free of charge. the printer doesn't care if it's complex geometry or simple one. >> just about to the initial question, which is a technology
significant and exciting, what is your view? >> i have to start by saying i don't think it disconnect 3-d printing. the me tell you why. the community has suspicion double off the manufactures, general trend to voters male car. less than 1% of value-added is made to individuals. write a bookshelf that's manufactured. so i assert in 20 years it will be less than 5%. you look around the building, were not going to individually make these chairs, so it's an interesting thing. it's cool. it's not big. the second question within corporations how big is this going to be? i agree with you that the things that they are, every single one
are small, discrete product productions. ford is not going -- they're not going to be making doors on 3-d printing. the court to continue stamping because sampling is cheaper printing. printing a super, super slow. so i don't think it's going to be that big. the last question about attack about technology, largely in the context of the u.s. manufacturing sector in the last decade suffered its worst performance in america's 235 year history. last 10% of output and a third third of its jobs. the question is are there technologies that we are going to gain an advantage? there's an assumption that because it's a technological innovation will gain the advantage. there's a lot of other countries. some of the technology? the technology is smart
manufacturing, integration of i.t. throughout the entire production system. manufacturing is still if you will. i think that's the big thing that really will have a big impact within the next decade. >> okay, were going to focus on 3-d printing and the impact of the industrial impacts. >> first of all, i didn't disagree with anything you said. i disagreed with the light he said, but it's a false economy. i believe in history if you look at music or software, music was done by labels. then came the internet, pc, tablets and players. anybody can create music. anyone can create software. it's not one versus the other. there's a record of one, 10,
100, with sun, 1 million. i would arrogated elyse interesting things happening now because that's the same thing for everyone. the most interesting stuff in his second software is intermediate sized markets. what we see today is digital tools that don't work the way they will ultimately come of that are useful today creating entirely new market for people like houses, furniture, cars, boats for themselves. it is a scale. it doesn't scale exactly the same way making mp3 tracks or acts. it's a different ecosystem in the market. so have your manufacturing will be better, but also boring because it's making whatever needs the same. the real ferment of activity assessed as different. >> there's no question mass customization in its manufacturing as are.
my son would go for like $5 market customize shoes. but that's not thread making no shoes. that's a d-day for some factory using advanced technology. i don't dispute that will have much more customized manufacturing. my only point is at least in the next 10 years were not living to an economy where individuals make large numbers of things. it's not going to be a day, big deal. >> you go to work in shifts outside of their and again, the weight of history that will still exist, but their central manufacturing, regional manufacturing, citywide city light at the end of your street and house manufacturing will become a continuum of scale in hs relative merit. i agree you're still exist, but i don't agree that's the only
interesting scale. >> is going to be an antidote with a business model in which some of these manufacturing companies will have to think of how they're going to enable their consumer base to co-create with them. some things you do home in summer land the fact -- >> is that manufacturing, but are we going get about a billion dollars ms? were not. relate it to 50 billion, we can have a conversation. >> here is a thing at. a colleague who runs one of these community technology that in barcelona just became the city architect. the connection is 50% youth unemployment.
it ships come in with the product made in your fact trees get consumed in putting trash dumps. what they're doing is crash urban policy is globally connect to for knowledge. but they do is bring back into the city, skills and jobs far away. any one of those projects again, the incremental cost doesn't compete with the fact jury. if everything you make us different, one if you change the supply chain service local and one of 50 value the role of the local production and the economy. all of those things lead to this infrastructure is a key part of urban planning. >> there's something like what you're talking about that got established in detroit. those are wonderful tanks. he played an important role in supporting those, so those are great. i'm not saying that's not real, not important.
it's just not the savior were talking about were remained at the million or 2 million manufacturing jobs. i don't think we should be putting all of our eggs in that past it. it's a nice thing, important, but it's not the savior. >> the discussion here has a national policy implications to what extent is 3-d printing a consumer economic -- you both agree 3-d printing is significant. >> why am i saying fabrication? >> and a well-equipped shop -- [inaudible] there's a list of the cuts a wire that their cars, >> said digital fabricates -- >> the question as to what extent is in economic growth
engine, to what extent has it done on a more consumer hobbyist individual level potentially local collective local as opposed to corporate level is a significant? data from policy implications in terms of how you support these technologies. what is your view? >> the role that government is to create the broadly enabling environment. whether neil is right or rob is right or somewhere in the middle the united states as well. if you ask us whether we think 3-d printing is an important technology, the answer is yes. last year the administration announced a government industry university collaboration, with where government is investing roughly heard a million to $40 million in advanced
manufacturing r&d related and that is being matched by the private sector. how they worked on and started in public policy, and starting to work on information communications technology policy in the white house in 93, my experience is nobody knows anything. if you go back in 1993, all the companies were persuaded that is going to be 500 channels on demand and then, you know, they also thought it was going to be some new technology called a sink transfer of god and not a lot of people are using mac, but that was the consensus within the industry. so the role of the government is too great a broadly enabling environment and to have a
portfolio of urge and investments in research and develop them. there's a number of things, setting aside the right technology, there is number of things attractive of the idea that make it easier for arch partners to start their own businesses. that plays to a core strength so anything we can reduce the time and cost associated with developing new products and reducing capital requirement i think is going to be a win for the united states. >> which are most excited about with materials and this may be little more on your list, but last week europe announced it is funding to the tune of 1 billion euros via research intake graphing, which you have heard his first latina for carbon
structure is stronger than steel and more connect than copper and has lots of very intuitive industrial applications in your phone in computers and things like that. and so, we've seen europe collectively make a big bet on research into wrangling with grassy night train to get into industrial cases. you were shaking your head. >> i'm shaking my head and everything you talk about with materials. were you missed it this sort of the old version is the machine and the material and you design the machine and then you design a toothpaste tube and what were describing now, the material and process that they can make her more tightly indicated. all of the research i just described with developing new
materials. they are the thing you're making i'm much more tightly integrated. >> that may give you an example. this is an alternative to carpal tunnel hand brace that is printed. it is printed for me, it is unique to me because i was able to scan my hand. i scanned my hand and i uploaded it to the cloud -- [inaudible] yes, so with my camera and was very inexpensive sensors i can now create some pain that is ventilated, dish washable, functional and cool and if it may. the point here is it's not that a single technology is going to
change coming in now, entrepreneurial shipping manufacturing. the conversion of the information technology, infinite computing accessible to me at home as it is to the factory and material science and combination is going to create opportunities to disrupt manufacturing and consumption as we know it. it's also going to change how we educate in how kids learn. it's going to change how we tell stories. it's going to change how we create information and there'll be lots of intersections between science and music in biology and everything else. that's why i'm excited about it. >> i think the way we think about materials is wrong. everyone is looking for the magical material will save everything and transform everything. there's this cool thing called the materials genome initiatives
and hardly anybody knows about it. it's basically this on most maps of all the materials about the property sorry. when you're a materials engineer it's amazing how little you know. it's an underfunded initiative. no criticism of the administration. we don't fund those things in the u.s. and going down that path which is material agnostic but adding knowledge about the material system is the place we should be starting. >> this is something president obama announced to the speech he gave at carnegie mellon university in 2011 to reduce the time and cost required to develop materials by at least 50%. part of that is make you more information available about properties of materials in the same way we did the human genome
project, but to improve modeling and simulation and synthesis of it can move away from relying solely on trial and error and someone can say i needed material that dead space and you'd be able to use computation modeling and simulation to predict properties as opposed to reliance solely on outcome, which is where we are in a number of instances today. >> the other component would probably talk about, but didn't talk about explicitly is automation and the extent to which technology is accelerating the animation of production. my guess is he'll say that pat and aimed at industrial level and is less significant for the commercial phenomena. >> remember at this oracle
moment when pcs emerged and were considered tories and didn't realize at the time, but data and deck were all beginning to die, there is a hacker culture empowered a accessibility of tools inventing facebook and google and all of that. one thing we've only touched on today this important safety that companies in the secessionist leader industry nerve research, but closer, that we have done a fabulous job with the hacker movement fast forwarded to the culture that again the last time he did this script davis internet and google and all of that. the hacker culture i see is the economic engine. some of what they make will become billion dollars business is, small businesses. so rather than automation killing jobs, if you go back to stories like the barcelona
story, it's going to bring jobs back to communities by leading manufacturing be self-sufficient. and don't take that it's either or. you may have a house like mine and make it in the house. you may have a tech shop -- a fab lab down the street for tech stocks in your village. he may have an incubator. i think what connects the line is rather than viewing is automation removing the is a tools bring back to where people are. [inaudible] >> heard me? >> net impact -- >> is this unbelievable amount of confusion in air and are thinking. if anyone saw 60 minutes with the story was essentially robots will destroy our jobs, if i have good news today, the bls last
quarter on a basis in the robots are giving our jobs back. i guess they're getting tired. so that's really great. the evidence of of automation in manufacturing, at least according to the work we've done, mike mandel and howard while, we fundamentally miss measure manufacturing out good, our u.s. government does any essentially overseas output by significant amount. instead of manufacturing output of 15% in this last decade, it actually went down 10% in a separate dvd, it was a mediocre number. there's actually a fair number of studies that show when companies increase productivity, they also make up other jobs because things are cheaper, to get more volume and become more
competitive. retreating a productivity jobs is fundamentally flawed. we cannot be competitive in manufacturing unless we keep raising productivity. we've got to keep our eye on that. if we do that, everything will work out quite well. it will mean different kinds of jobs, higher skilled kinds of jobs. >> the convergence of this technology creates an opportunity for competitive advantage in tomorrow's skills today, starting with younger kids and exposing them to take ologies and capabilities. i absolutely agree with me all the culturally we have a real differentiator here. we have a real competitive advantage that if industry and government harnesses and empowers, we have an opportunity to take these technologies and
our culture and the research increase in page. or ought to be a real urgency to do it because it's going to happen with or without ice. the train has left the station. we are uniquely equipped to exercise leadership because of combined core competency. it's going to be done to us. >> do you think the u.s. manufacturers are focused enough on the early-stage research come every skier of stuff? in this economic equation of where they get the incentives to put real money against earlier, riskier stuff with lesser payoff than automating an existing assembly line for that sort of thing. >> may keep hammering the point. the word manufacturing it started badly, 36 s-sierra the
air out of the room. you have to talk about manufacturing. it has this connotation is serious people in a remote building doing something tedious. what we talk about is the revolution in making exactly what happened to software in the sick. there's this tremendous diversity. idl mark >> yeah, that would be great. it's going to be won, 10, 100, 1000, 1 million. given that, so pineland data, ibm survived. if you like who is going to die, the thoughtful big companies for working with get networks. they don't think our companies are building comes square feet, card, fence. it is we are functioning ecosystem and do so symbiotically and summit
partners. the ones that seem to be on the dinosaur course are the ones that define themselves structurally. maybe we can come back later. there's an analogy for education. same thing in education. >> it doesn't matter if the traditional manufacturers to the earlier, riskier research as long as they are networked. >> somebody has to do it. >> inventive people are strange. they don't behave by definition. mit's core competencies for strange people and you do need to behave, so if you want people to invent, unique symbiotic structures to some degree, unique people to follow instructions. the transition among us as his university or grass-roots companies. it's building network that can
carry innovation. >> my experience in corporate life is that there are strange people in nonacademic settings. >> you mention our company is investing more in automation and not an early-stage creative research. if you look at u.s. manufacturing capital stock, reflection of how many machines, and putting 3-d printers defined broadly by the dea pretty much use to grow every decade in america on the order of 25 to 55% a decade. so in two decades our technology stock in manufacturing the double. in the 2070 essentially. it should never again have been. u.s. companies from investing in automation machine. secondly, we have innovation economics and global advantage. if you look at the sheer corporate r&d's as basic,
applied in development, with the only industrial nation for the corporate share shrink in the last decade. every other country expanded our u.s. come names to the office said in a shrink their basic and applied because that's really really risky shareholders say we really don't care but she returns in seven years. we want returns next year. the other component is we now have a 27 week is the most anemic tax code so the tax code does every word that. all the great work at m.i.t. actually nowhere near the lead in funding university research. there's many, many countries that opposed it, big beds. where lucky we have m.i.t. and caltech, but we are not as a country putting those investments together.
as for not investing more in to it, were not the ones that will read the benefits. >> if they're not worth taking place, enough research into basic knowledge you need to support the stuff you want to do and the staff with would be more significant. do you want to comment on not? >> it's it's definitely the case there's lots of types of research rest and economists put it, the social return and the private return is insufficient to generate the private sector investment. that's why we have to look for more of these types of partnerships between government, industry and the air. one good example is the collaboration the federal government has with this and i can industry, citizens who no longer have institutions like bell labs, which made large investments in developing the
first transistor, government and industry are now cosponsoring a series of university-based centers of excellence at m.i.t. and stanford advert lead ucla to figure out how to retake as far as the look of two weeks fundamental physical limits and is there anything after that quite >> government is putting half the money -- >> tom and i are cohosting a meeting next month on the science additional fabrication because what i saw as every agency is spending money on this, but the work at the heart of today's discussion doesn't easily fit their segregation. to some degree the issue isn't the money to go into it. is creating the alignment in the things that don't fit